| |
|
|
Transcript
vs. Potential
The
most recent AYA assembly focused on how the admissions process identifies
the sort of applicant who will not only do well at Yale, but go
on to be "part of the solution" in later life.
Summer
1996
by Annie Murphy Paul
While
high school seniors around the country were still celebrating --
or mourning -- the results of their college search,
more than 300 veterans of the process gathered at Yale to examine
admissions from the
inside. Assembly XLVIII of the Association of Yale Alumni, held
from April 26 to 28, sought to demystify, in the words of Yale College
Dean Richard Brodhead, "the
work of divination or prophecy" that determines the composition
of the student body.
Titled "Admissions:
Selection for Leadership," the Assembly began with remarks
by its chair, Roger H. Thompson '64, and by Brodhead. Describing
his own view of the admissions process, Brodhead asked his audience
to imagine a narrow door or portal. On one side are applicants ("I
like to think of them as supplicants," he said), and on the
other, a smaller and slightly older population: current Yale students.
This latter group, said Brodhead, is the standard against which
prospective students must be judged. "Every college has its
vision of the ideal student," he said. "We have that example
right before our eyes." Brodhead said that the admissions office
seeks out those "with real raw intelligence, and the willingness
to do the kind of work that makes that intelligence bear fruit."
But the task of admissions,
said Brodhead, "is not only about choosing people who will
be great students while they're here. Our work is done for the sake
of the life they lead after they leave Yale." The University,
he said, should produce people who will "carry with them a
font of knowledge," who will be "a part of the solution,
no matter what the problem may be."
His words were echoed
by James Thomas, associate dean of the Law School, who shared in
the subsequent panel discussion with Art School Dean David Pease
and Dean of Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid Richard Shaw.
"We are readying students not just for a profession, but for
citizenship in the world," said Thomas.
Affirming Brodhead's
observation that "perfect transcripts are perfectly compatible
with utterly uninteresting minds," Thomas said that the Law
School tried to identify students who were willing to think unconventionally
and challenge authority. (He conceded that the school's "bright
and cantankerous" students "sometimes bring us grief.")
In the words of another panel participant, Nursing School dean Judith
Krauss, Yale attracts "students who are part of the solution,
but who don't mind causing a few problems along the way."
After
a break for lunch, alumni delegates were offered the rare opportunity
to apply what Brodhead called "these appallingly high standards"
at case study workshops led by Yale admissions officers. In the
workshops, meant to simulate an admissions committee meeting, participants
were given the applications of three recent Yale hopefuls (whose
names and identifying characteristics had been changed to protect
their privacy). Each group was invited to read the applications,
discuss them, and then vote to admit, reject, or place the candidates
on the waiting list.
At one of these meetings,
hosted by Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions Harry Levit,
a hush settled over the room as soon as he handed out the first
folder. "Leah Calhoun," as she had been rechristened by
the admissions office, was a three-sport varsity athlete, a budding
artist, and the daughter of a Yale alumnus. Her scores on standardized
tests, while high, were lower than average for Yale applicants;
her grades were a mix of A's and B's. She was active in community
service, however, and had served in student government while making
the honor roll for all four years of high school.
Leah's essays, about
dealing with a losing athletic season and about finding satisfaction
in her extracurricular activities, were judged by the alumni panel
to be tightly organized and clearly written, although most felt
they lacked "flair." Teacher recommendations described
her as creative, hard-working, and well-liked. But a sour note was
sounded by her alumni interviewer, who reported that Leah had not
done more than meet the expectations of her privileged private-school
environment.
Once they finished reading
the application, the delegates were eager to voice their opinions.
"Her essays have a wooden quality," said one. "They
lack personality and specificity, and they don't display the skills
and sophistication I would expect from a Yale student." Commented
another alumnus: "I thought she was telling me what she thought
I wanted to hear." Another participant complained that Leah's
extracurricular activities "didn't demonstrate leadership,"
and yet another said, almost regretfully,
"She's strong academically,
but so are a lot of the people in Yale's applicant pool."
Others leapt to Leah's
defense. "Her grades in senior year were the highest of her
four years in high school," one pointed out. "I think
that's admirable." Another woman found the alumni interviewer's
report unnecessarily harsh, and said that she tended to put more
trust in the positive recommendations of Leah's teachers, some of
whom had known her since she was in fifth grade. One man recommended
that Leah be admitted because, despite some weaknesses, her father
had attended Yale.
The vote
was split: two to reject, four to admit, and five to wait-list.
(The admissions officer revealed later that the real admissions
committee had at first elected to place Leah on the waiting list,
but when the rest of the applicant pool proved unexpectedly strong,
she was rejected.)
The next application
belonged to "Lyle Stiles," a prospective economics major
with a passion for foreign languages. First in his class of almost
700, Lyle had received one B in high school; the rest of his grades
were A's. His test scores were in the top tenth of Yale applicants,
and in his senior year in high school he was taking three honors
and four advanced placement classes.
The first of Lyle's
essays was an appealing and articulate description of his fascination
with Asian language and culture, but the second, about a family
dispute, was muddled and incoherent. Lyle's teachers called him
confident, disciplined, and energetic, if sometimes overbearing,
and his alumni interviewer gave him the highest possible rating,
writing that Yale would be lucky to have him. One of his teachers,
however, reported that Lyle was arrogant and rude, and had bullied
her and his classmates.
Lyle's application aroused
strong feelings among the alumni readers. One recent graduate said
that as she read, she asked herself, "Would I want to sit across
from this student in the dining hall? Would I want to share a bathroom
with him?" The answer, she said, was an emphatic "No."
Others agreed. "This student seems to take a combative approach
to life," said one participant. "He is not going to go
out and make the world a better place." Another alumnus was
bothered by the unevenness of Lyle's essays. "They sounded
as if they were written by two different people," he said.
"I couldn't bring this person together."
There were some, however,
who felt that Lyle's academic credentials made him a shoo-in. "This
guy is brilliant," emphasized one member of the group. "If
he isn't the kind of person Yale lets in, then who is?" Another
offered that Yale might be good for Lyle. "If he's at a place
where he is constantly challenged by people every bit as smart as
he is," she said, "then he'd have to learn some humility."
This
time, the vote was more decisive: nine to reject, one to accept,
and one to wait-list. The
admissions office, said Levit, was in full agreement. Although Lyle
was undoubtedly academically qualified to attend Yale, "character
issues" kept him from getting in.
The final applicant,
dubbed "Ronald Berkeley," had grown up in an immigrant
family whose members rarely spoke English. Nonetheless, his grades
were an uninterrupted succession of A's and A+'s, several in college-level
courses. His test scores were solid, if not spectacular. Intent
on becoming a medical researcher, Ronald volunteered five hours
a week at a local clinic.
His essays were eloquent
and moving meditations on his parents' homeland and its people:
the first, about a childhood visit to a small rural village; the
second, about the wisdom and gentleness of his grandfather. His
teachers spoke of him in glowing terms, describing his intellectual
curiosity, strength of character, and caring for other people.
There didn't seem to
be much to say about Ronald -- except, as one alumnus put it, "Let's
hope he comes here." The vote to admit was unanimous, and Levit
later confirmed that Ronald had indeed received a thick envelope
from Yale.
Even though the delegate
committee's one-in-three rate of admission was higher than Yale's
actual ratio of one-in-five, its participants expressed surprise
at how hard they had to work to choose between such talented applicants.
"We felt like a bunch of preschoolers, trying to decide which
is the most beautiful color," said Bruce Heitler '67, '72JD,
who related the results of his workshop at a joint session afterwards.
"Or," he continued, "like a group of Chinese sages,
trying to decide what a dragon looks like."
The delegates returned
to more prosaic matters the next morning, in a question-and-answer
session with Director of Undergraduate Admissions Margit Dahl (see
following story), who fielded queries
from alumni about financial aid, early-decision procedures, foreign
students, and, a topic of particular interest to many in the audience,
the admission of alumni children. "Those who think we're not
as responsive to this issue as we used to be haven't looked at the
declining levels of 'legacy' applicants," said Dahl. "There
just aren't as many Yale children out there to admit."
A day earlier, Dean
Brodhead had likened Dahl and her colleagues in the admissions office
to "prospectors in the hills, gathering rocks and bringing
them back, scrutinizing and testing them to see if they're gold."
The gold rush of admissions may be more frenzied these days, its
glitter more false -- but careful sifting, Dahl suggested, still spots
the real thing.
|
|